Objectionable content: Facebook,Google comply; 8216;spare us action8217;

Facebook and Google India filed the compliance reports in response to the court8217;s December 24,2011 order directing them and 20 other social network websites to give replies. The court had earlier asked them to remove the objectionable contents in the form of photographs,videos or texts which might hurt religious sentiments.

While Facebook and Google India filed their compliance reports before Additional Civil Judge Praveen Singh,Yahoo and Microsoft filed applications for deletion of their names from the civil complaint stating that there was no allegation

against them of webcasting any objectionable contents.

The court directed all 22 sites to 8220;file written statements within 15 days from today. Replies to applications filed by defendants be also filed by the plaintiff.8221;

The matter will now come up for arguments on March 1. Facebook,in its affidavit of compliance,said it does not control or operate the servers that host the website available at facebook.com,which are located in the United States.

8220;Upon perusal of the contents of the CD,Defendant no.1 Facebook India Online Services Pvt Ltd finds that the images and videos do not contain URL Uniform Resource Locator to indicate that the source of the downloaded material is facebook.com.

8220;Moreover,Defendant no.1 does not control or operate the servers that host the website available at facebook.com which are located in the United States,8221; Facebook said.

It also filed a separate application seeking deletion of its name from the array of the parties,saying,8221;The contents of the suit are wrong and that it is neither a necessary nor a proper party to it.8221;

It said it has been impleaded under incorrect description i.e. Facebook as there is no legal entity by this name. 8220;The correct name of Defendant no.1 is Facebook India Online Services Pvt Ltd and not Facebook,8221; it submitted.

Google India,in its compliance report,contended that it has removed certain URLs or webpages from the Internet.

Its counsel also told the court that they took the step even as they were not supplied with complete documents by the plaintiff.

At this,the court said,8221;The counsel for the defendants have submitted that the entire set of documents and CD has not been supplied to them and,therefore,they are not able to prepare their defence effectively. The petitioner is directed to supply the same.8221;

8220;It is necessary for the defendants to be supplied with every copy of alleged defamatory material relied upon by the plaintiff to prepare their defence effectively,8221; the judge said.

8220;Defendants are fastened by a duty by this court to remove defamatory articles shown in CD by plaintiff. Unless the alleged defamatory material is not supplied to the defendants,they cannot be expected to and cannot remove the same,8221; he said.

Yahoo,in its application,said it had written to the plaintiff to point out the objectionable material on the CD supplied with the complaint after it failed to find any material pertaining to it.

It said since it did not receive any reply from him,8221;there is no act that is required to be done by it in order to give effect to and comply with8221; the court8217;s December 24 order.

It also sought deletion of its name from the list of parties,saying it has been bunched with 8220;other prominent social networking websites on the patently mistaken assumption that it was a social networking website.8221;

8220;The Defendant no.5 Yahoo is primarily a content portal offering e-mail and messenger communication services but not offering features generally associated with social networking websites. So to that extent the website of Defendant no.5 cannot be regarded as a social networking website8221;.

Yahoo also said that there is no cause for action against it in as much as 8220;the plaintiff has nowhere averred that any such alleged offensive material was present or hosted by it or has annexed any documents to show that any offensive material was present on its website.8221;

Microsoft India Pvt Ltd also sought rejection of the plaint against it,saying there is 8220;not even a whisper of allegation against it in the entire plaint8221; and no cause for action is disclosed against it.

The court has also asked the plaintiff to change the name of the parties noting that the same party is appearing twice in the list of defendants and that 8220;one party cannot be arrayed twice8221;.

Earlier in the day,the court had asked Google Inc as to why it was not coming up 8220;properly8221; with a reply when the counsel for the company contented that he had received the copy of the judgement and other documents related to case only on last Friday.

The judge,during the hearing,posed a query to the counsel appearing for petitioner Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi,as to whether the blog service-providing companies can be made a party to the case for any content posted by the users on the blogs.

The court had on December 20 last year,in a ex-parte order,issued summons to 22 social networking websites asking them to remove 8220;anti-religious8221; or 8220;anti-social8221; content in the form of photographs,videos or texts which might hurt religious sentiments.

It had on December 24 set February 6 as deadline for the websites.

The court8217;s order had come amid a raging controversy over monitoring the content on Internet and of those websites depending on user generated contents,which arose after Union Telecommunications Minister Kapil Sibal had asked the social networking websites to 8220;screen8221; the contents.

The websites,which have been asked to remove objectionable contents,include Facebook India,Google India Pvt Ltd,Google Orkut,Youtube,Blogspot,Microsoft India Pvt Ltd,Microsoft,Zombie Time,Exboii,Boardreader,IMC India,My Lot,Shyni Blog and Topix.